- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:52:26 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
alt1 and alt2 is good. It is fairly obvious (but should be explained in constraints) that alternateOf(a, b) indirectly implies alternateOf(b, a), as it implies specializationOf(a, X) specializationOf(b, X) and that implies: alternateOf(b, a) alternateOf(a, b) Would we need to say that if alternateOf(a, b) alternateOf(a, c) it does not imply: alternateOf(b, c) ? On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 22:46, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > Do they need fully contextualized names? Can they just be a and b, or x and > y? I'm pretty sure this isn't a qualified relation... > > Jim > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > wrote: >> >> >> BTW, has somebody got better names for first and second alternate? >> >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html#alternate.firstAlternate >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html#alternate.secondAlternate >> >> Thanks, >> Luc >> >> >> On 26/03/12 22:38, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi Paolo, >> >> I have updated the text to make it clear that the common entity does not >> need >> to be identified. >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/rev/21b96bf05727 >> >> Cheers, >> Luc >> >> On 26/03/12 15:59, Paolo Missier wrote: >> >> Luc >> >> >> On 3/26/12 2:54 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for your very useful suggestions. >> >> I have drafted a revised section in a separate file >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd5-prov-dm-alternate.html >> >> Does capture what has been discussed so far? >> >> I think so. To me it is important that when we say >> " They are both specialization of an (unspecified) entity." eg in the >> first example, it is clear that there no obligation to say anything about >> the common entity that they specialize. This, however, contrasts with the >> definition itself: >> " An entity is alternate of another if they are both a specialization of >> some common entity." >> It is not clear what to make of this defining property of alternates -- it >> gives an existential condition which is not actionable in general. So to me >> this is potentially confusing. >> >> >> Also, if specialization(a,b) is it the case that alternateOf(a,b)? >> >> no. I recall that we've been there before. At some point there was a >> discussion on specialization having a "top" and being transitive and >> therefore, with this additional inferences, everything would collapse. >> >> Regards, >> -Paolo >> >> >> Regards, >> Luc >> >> On 25/03/2012 17:16, Timothy Lebo wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 25, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Jim McCusker wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >>> >>> In my review comments which I think you have yet to get round to, I >>> question whether we actually need to have these concepts in the DM. >>> >>> Originally, by my recollection, they were introduced to explain the >>> relationship between provenance entities and (possibly dynamic) real world >>> things. With the looser description of the provenance model terms, I don't >>> see why this level of detail is needed in the data model. >> >> >> Then you don't recollect correctly. >> >> >> I remember IPV-of as the "relationship between provenance entities and >> (possibly dynamic) real world things", but specializationOf has developed >> into a more general association between entities that can include this >> original purpose. Indeed, eg-19 [1] is using alt and specOf for _exactly_ >> this original "frozen snapshot of changing things" notion -- applied to >> datasets and web services. >> >> Instead of digging up the archives, perhaps we can rally around altOf and >> specOf being the tools we use to associate (and make sense of) assertions >> made by the combinations of scruffy and proper provenance. >> (Like Simon's extension to Stian's BBC example). In addition, it's an >> incredibly useful construct for one's own "proper" modeling. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Eg-19-derived-named-graph-attribution >> >> They were defined because there was an acknowledgement that there were >> multiple symbols that denoted a common thing in the world. Sometimes they >> reflected different aspects of the same thing (alternativeOf) and sometimes >> they had a subsumptive quality (specializationOf). >> >> >> I think these previous two statements contradict (and steer scarily >> towards owl:sameAs, which alt and specOf are certainly _not_) >> Different aspects of the same thing are not the same things. >> >> -Tim >> >> >> Jim >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >> http://tw.rpi.edu >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ----------- ~oo~ -------------- >> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org >> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK >> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier >> > > > > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 > http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu > > PhD Student > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > mccusj@cs.rpi.edu > http://tw.rpi.edu -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:53:22 UTC